Attachment 2 - 52.212-2 Addendum FINAL.pdf

Attachment 2 - FAR 52.212-2 Addendum 52.212(a) Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition is an 8(a) set-aside. Offerors must be eligible to receive an 8(a) contract at the time of award, estimated as 30 April 2024, as determined by the Small Business Administration. Offerors that have graduated from the 8(a) Program are not eligible for award of a contract resulting from this solicitation.

The source selection, a Price-Past Performance Tradeoff, will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS).

These regulations are available electronically at the FAR Site at http://www.acquisition.gov.

The Government will make a best value determination utilizing a tradeoff source selection process with a price factor, a technical factor, and a past performance factor. The technical factor is a gate criterion and only technically acceptable offers will be eligible for award. Past performance is significantly more important than price. The tradeoff will occur between the past performance factor and the price factor. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the merits of the past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the merits of the past performance of the lower priced Offerors. The source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

One contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.3 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the CO to be necessary (see FAR 52.212-1(g)).

http://www.acquisition.gov/

Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revisions.

1.4 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors shall provide the information described in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and PWS requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. In the case that a discrepancy exists between the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services and the addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, the evaluation criteria in the addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services will take precedence.

2.0 EVALUATION STEP 1 – PRICE

Initially, the Government shall place all proposals that meet the solicitation terms and conditions in order by price beginning with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as stated in Section 2.1, below.

The Government will then evaluate the lowest total evaluated priced offer to determine if it is balanced, as stated in Section 2.2, below.

2.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of all prices provided in the Attachment 4 – Price Sheet, including all option period prices. The Offeror's proposed price will be reviewed for compliance with the instructions provided in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

SIX MONTH EXTENSION

The Government will evaluate the price of the six-month extension by taking the total of the third option period and multiplying it by 50%. This six-month extension calculation will only be used during evaluation of proposals.

The actual value for the six-month extension will be determined IAW FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, if and when the six-month extension is exercised during contract performance.

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP)

For each option period (OP), the Offeror's TEP will be calculated as follows:

TEP = Base Period + OP1 + OP2 + OP3 + Six-Month Extension Evaluated Price

2.2 Balance

The Lowest Priced Offeror's price proposal will be evaluated for balance IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Evaluated proposals that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award.

3.0 EVALUATION STEP 2 – TECHNICAL

Next, the Government will evaluate the lowest total evaluated priced Offeror's technical proposal in order to assign an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the Offeror's proposal will satisfy the Government's minimum requirements. There is one Technical Factor. In order for an Offeror to receive a rating of Acceptable, the Technical Factor must receive a rating of Acceptable.

Technical Factor – Management Plan For completeness, the Management Plan must follow the 52.212-1 requirements. For feasibility the Government will assess if the Management Plan is adequate to meet the PWS requirements. The standard has been met when: The Offeror adequately demonstrates a comprehensive and realistic business approach to support PWS requirements on a daily basis, including a reasonable approach to interfacing with the Government team, the incumbent Contractor, Contractor employees, and customers.

The plan must also adequately describe an efficient and effective approach to staffing qualified personnel and for addressing deficiencies and complaints.

If the lowest total evaluated priced Offeror’s technical proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating, the evaluation of that Offeror’s proposal will stop. The Government will then move to the next lowest total evaluated priced Offeror's technical proposal, and this process will continue until a rating of “Acceptable” is achieved or until all offers have been evaluated.

Once a proposal is found to have an acceptable technical factor, that proposal will continue to the next evaluation factor, Past Performance.

Rating Description Acceptable The standard has been met Unacceptable The standard has not been met

4.0 EVALAUTION STEP 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Next, the Government will evaluate the lowest total evaluated priced, technically acceptable Offeror's past performance in order to assign an overall performance confidence assessment rating. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

4.1 Evaluation of Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the PWS requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying the services that meet the PWS requirements. The recency and relevance of the past performance information, the quality of performance, source of the information, and context of the data will be considered. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation that will be assessed: recency, relevancy, and quality. These will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

Offerors shall provide a point of contact for each past performance reference so that the Government evaluation team can verify the information provided, via phone or email. If the point of contact cannot be reached through reasonable attempt, the reference may not be considered for further evaluation.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror's recent and relevant past performance. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror's proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), System for Award Management (SAM), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA); the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, or Contracting Officer’s Representatives.

4.1.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will first be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated for relevance or quality.

4.1.2 Relevancy Assessment

Next, the Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. Relevant contracts include performance in the Government and/or private sector similar in scope (Q701 or Q801), magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government is not bound to the Contractor’s relevancy determination. The Government will assign a relevancy rating using the following relevancy definitions when assessing each recent past performance reference:

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned attributes of scope as well as magnitude and complexities, as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures.

The past performance information provided in the Past Performance Volume of this proposal and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

4.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment (Quality Record of Performance) The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the Contractor performed) of recent, relevant, and somewhat relevant efforts in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

Performance information from any source can be incorporated into the performance confidence assessment, with the primary source being the Offeror provided point of contact for each citation.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

4.1.4 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated overall performance confidence assessment rating.

The Performance Confidence Assessment ratings include “Substantial Confidence,” “Satisfactory Confidence,” “Neutral Confidence,” “Limited Confidence,” or “No Confidence,” as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, shown below. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the Offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "neutral." A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

For purposes of evaluation all like performance confidence ratings are considered equal.

5.0 BEST VALUE DETERMINATION

If the lowest total evaluated priced, technically acceptable Offeror is evaluated to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating, that Offeror represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that Offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest total evaluated priced, technically acceptable Offeror is not evaluated to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest total evaluated priced Offeror will be evaluated utilizing the methodology above, and the process will continue (in order by price) until a technically acceptable Offeror is evaluated to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating or until all Offerors have been evaluated. At that point, whichever occurs first, the SSA will then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. The SSA performs this assessment by comparing technically acceptable Offeror's performance confidence assessment ratings and the price of all evaluated proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government.

(End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-2)